Saturday, August 9, 2014

Guns protect against lone predators, burglars, rapists, gangs and hordes
of various sorts, zombies or otherwise. As a practical matter there is
little difference between a zombie who wants to eat your brain and a
criminal who would bash it in with a brick. Guns either repel them or
dispatch them to an appropriate destination.

BTW, isn't a coward someone who lives their life in fear? Especially irrational fear?

A young girl attending an anti-National
Rifle Association rally at the Colorado State Capitol wears an armband
saying "NO GUNS" in Denver, May 1. The Colorado Coalition Against Gun
Violence organized the rally to protest the NRA having its annual
meeting in Denver after the tragic Columbine High School shootings on
April 20.
Reuters/GCC/JP/WS

IBT

A 5-year-old boy shot and critically injured a 3-year-old girl in
Pueblo, Colorado, on Monday, using a handgun that belonged to her
mother’s boyfriend.

The girl was shot in the backyard of her home when a 9-year-old boy,
who was playing with the two other children, gave the handgun to the
5-year-old, who then pointed it at the girl and pulled the trigger,
shooting her once. The bullet went through the girl’s body without
breaking any bones, Pueblo police said in a statement, Reuters
reported.

Due to their age, the two boys who handled the gun will not face
charges but an investigation will focus on how the older boy got hold of
the firearm, police said, adding that the girl’s mother was present at
the home along with her boyfriend, Adrian Chavez, 22, when the shooting
took place.

Chavez reportedly fled the location after the shooting, and was caught by police five hours later.

"Chavez will be charged with child abuse resulting in serious bodily
injury for the gun that was left unattended," police said, adding that
he also had an outstanding warrant for not appearing in court in an
unrelated case.

An 8-year-old boy was shot by his 7-year-old relative on Thursday
while they were left alone with a gun in an apartment in Texas City,
Texas.

Texas City police told the Galveston newspaper that three children,
including a 9-year-old, were alone at the apartment when they “found the
handgun inside the residence.” The 7-year-old pulled the trigger and
wounded his relative, according to the Daily News.

Police told the Daily News that the 7-year-old would not face charges due to his age.

However, police did note that the adult who was supposed to be
supervising the children could face criminal charges, according to the
Daily News.

Friday, August 8, 2014

The class of cases to
which the constitutional provision applies is widely different from the right of
a private citizen to bear, concealed about his person, deadly weapons or arms.
In the one, they are kept and carried in conformity with the Constitution and
laws of the United States, with a certain specific object in view; in the other,
they are kept and carried for private purposes, wholly independent of any
constitutional regulation, and to answer private ends, wh[i]ch have no bearing
upon the security of the State[.] If this idea be correct, then it follows that
when arms are not kept or used for the defense of the State or Federal
government, the manner of carrying and mode of using them are subject to the
control and authority Of the State Legislature.

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)-
A Confederate flag flies at mile marker 134 on Interstate 95 in
Virginia, raised by the Virginia Flaggers “to honor the 246,000
Confederate soldiers who fought in separate battles in the
Fredericksburg vicinity during the Civil War,” according to Fox News.
They see the flag as a symbol of “pride, not racism.”

However, they are being countered by the NAACP, which says the flag does symbolize “racism, oppression… [and] reminds people of slavery.”

Virginia Flaggers’ Barry Isenhour told The Washington Post that “he doesn’t think of the flag as a symbol of a fight to preserve slavery because” he doesn’t think the Civil War was over slavery to begin with. Rather, Isenhour said the Confederates were fighting against “Northern aggression.”
Stafford County spokeswoman Cathy Vollbrecht said there have been numerous “complaints and inquiries” about the flag, but there are no plans to take it down. She said her office determined that “no laws have been violated.”

What do you think? Is this a nod to slavery or tribute to Confederate civil war soldiers?

State agents say 136 people have been stopped from buying guns in South Carolina under a new law that took effect last year.

WCIV in Charleston reported last week
that State Law Enforcement Division chief Mark Keel wrote in a letter
those individuals had been deemed mentally incompetent to own a gun. In
2013, legislators required probate judges to submit those judicial
orders to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. While
it was already illegal for those individuals to own a handgun, South
Carolina had not previously been submitting the information to the FBI
until last year.

The
State Law Enforcement Division also said its agents have revoked 132
concealed weapons permits from CWP carriers who were ineligible to carry
them under the law. SLED also revoked 29 applications, the letter
stated.

A jury in Detroit found Theodore Wafer guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of Renisha McBride Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

Wafer, 55, was on trial in Detroit's Wayne County Circuit Court after shooting 19-year-old McBride
on his porch in November. McBride appeared at Wafer's house in Dearborn
Heights, adjacent to Detroit, around 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 2. She crashed
her car nearby earlier that night, and no one knows her whereabout in
the several hours between the accident and her death. She was severely
intoxicated. She knocked on Wafer's door, potentially looking for help;
he came to the door with a loaded shotgun and shot her in the face.

One of the first images the jury saw in the trial was of McBride, lying lifeless on Wafer's front porch. Wafer
pleaded not guilty and his attorney sought to show the shooting was in
self defense. According to the defense, Wafer woke that night to loud,
intense banging on his front door and side door and feared multiple
people were breaking in.

"In the depth of his being, he's never been that scared in his life," defense attorney Cheryl Carpenter said.

But Alachua County Circuit Judge Toby Monaco entered a summary
judgment on Wednesday stating that UF and President Bernie Machen were
not violating Florida law by recognizing the Legislature's prohibition
against guns in housing on university property.

Florida Carry last year won a decision by the 1st District
Court of Appeal asserting that the Legislature has sole jurisdiction for
gun policy, and universities could not ban weapons stored in vehicles.

“Unlike the right to have a firearm in a vehicle, the
Legislature's recognition of a person's right to possess a firearm in a
home does not extend to a residence hall on a university campus,” Monaco
said in this week's order. “There is no exception in (state law) for a
residence hall like there is for a vehicle.”

The university released a statement saying it was pleased with the ruling.

“The University of Florida fully complies with Florida law
that allows individuals 18 years or older to store their guns securely
in vehicles while on campus, as determined by a 1st DCA decision last
year, and the university will continue to do so,” the statement said.
“Florida law otherwise bans guns on university, college and K-12
campuses and at their events, with limited exceptions such as for law
enforcement.”

"Both house and ground were vested and in trustees, expressly for the
use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say
something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not
being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in
general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a
missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his
service."
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklinhttp://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page49.htm

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

A southwest suburban gun dealer is facing federal
charges after illegally selling several firearms, including to an
undercover agent posing as a felon, according to federal prosecutors.

Patrick Sean Keiran, 40, is charged with four counts of selling
firearms without recording the name, age and residence of the purchaser;
selling firearms to an individual he had reason to believe was a
convicted felon; and selling firearms to an individual who did not
display a valid FOID card, according to a statement from the U.S.
Attorney’s office.

According to prosecutors, in less than one month, Keiran illegally
sold 11 firearms — eight 9mm handguns, two .22 caliber rifles, and a .38
caliber rifle. Keiran sold the weapons to an undercover agent posing as
a felon, and to a felon cooperating with authorities.

Backers of an initiative petition requiring background checks for gun
purchases in Nevada won a court victory Friday and a spokesman said the
group is ready to start gathering signatures.

District
Judge James Wilson ordered a minor rewrite of the initiative, striking
down most of the arguments of those who said the 200-word description of
the petition was misleading.

Matt Griffin, attorney for Nevadans
for Background Checks, said he was pleased with the decision, which
will allow his clients to begin gathering the required 101,667
signatures to qualify the initiative.

Rew Goodenow, an attorney
representing a pro-firearms group, said he did not think there would be
an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court at this stage but he wants to talk
to his clients before deciding on future legal strategy.

The
current law requires a person who buys a gun from a licensed seller to
undergo a background check. The initiative would require a background
check in purchases from an unlicensed dealer.The petition says
the law makes it easier for felons, domestic abusers and other dangerous
persons to buy a weapon without a background check.

The
background check would not be required in the transfer of firearms
between family members, for those using the gun while hunting and
trapping and who have valid licenses for this activity.

Wayne LaPierre's miquotation of FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" that he attributes to Winston Churchill, which makes it only more laughable...

if people were able to see beyond their fear and ignorance that what he is saying is obvious bullshit.

Here is the actual speech made by FDR (his first inaugural address):

This is a good analysis of the use of fear to manipulate people. LaPierre wants people to be afraid since he knows scared people don't think very well.

FDR, on the other hand, is making a speech of reassurance and hope. FDR is trying to do the exact opposite of what LaPierre is doing (which probably would also be the case if Churchill had made such a speech--he would want people to be confident, not afraid).

The reality is that this is such blatantly obvious propaganda and fear mongering that this post should be unnecessary.

Unfortunately, it is necessary.

Propaganda is the use of emotions (in this case fear) to cause people to short circuit their intellect.

You're being played.

You would know that if you would sit back and use critical reasoning skills.

This is the entire text of Patrick Henry's speech in context, but I will put US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 as a reminder of what it says:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according
to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Citation for Henry's speech is The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution (3 Elliot's Debates 384-7), Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition
have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I
was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two
great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at
parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of
government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and
come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be
still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to
surrender this most valuable of rights.

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between
the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming,
organizing, and
disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be
employed in the service of the United States." To the state
legislatures is given the power of "appointing the officers, and
training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to
arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the
right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress has a concurrent
power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress
have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of
powers will carry you into endless absurdity— that Congress has nothing
exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational
explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power
of arming them, &c., and that the state governments shall have
exclusive
power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another
light.

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be
concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of
regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is,
that every man be armed.
But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every
one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience,
that
necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a
succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia
completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power
is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your
militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which
shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If
gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be
the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress
shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or
neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what
they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of
our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not
save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be
laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to
implication.

The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize.
The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they
would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part
of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution,
but from
the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust
themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they
have
greater strength of nerves than I have.

The honorable gentleman, in endeavoring to answer the question why the
militia were to be called forth to execute the laws, said that the
civil power would probably do it. He is driven to say, that the civil
power
may do it instead of the militia. Sir, the military power ought not to
interpose till the civil power refuse. If this be the spirit of your
new
Constitution, that the laws are to be enforced by military coercion, we
may
easily divine the happy consequences which will result from it. The
civil
power is not to be employed at all. If it be, show me it. I read it
attentively, and could see nothing to warrant a belief that the civil
power
can be called for. I shall be glad to see the power that authorizes
Congress to do so. The sheriff will be aided by military force. The
most wanton excesses may be committed under color of this; for every man
in office, in the states, is to take an oath to support it in all its
operations. The honorable gentleman said, in answer to the objection
that the militia might be marched from New Hampshire to Georgia, that
the members of the government would not attempt to excite the
indignation of the people. Here, again, we have the general
unsatisfactory answer, that they will be virtuous, and that there is no
danger.

As you can see, Henry's concern is not for private arms, but the fact that Congress has the power to arm the militia.

Additionally, the issue of the use of military force is mentioned, since the real core issue was civilian control of the military, whether it is a professional standing army or the civilian militia. A militia needed to be under civilian control (i.e., "well regulated") as much, if not more so, than a professional army if there is to be domestic tranquility.

Anyway, when read as a whole, this text proves that this speech deals with the nature of the military force and how it was to be armed as opposed to anything else.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Don't forget Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, which
is something that need needs to be mentioned in relation to the Second
Amendment. This provision gives Congress the power to arm the militia.

That was really what the Second Amendment refers to.

No conversation about the Second Amendment should neglect that this is part of the Constitution:

(Congress has the power} To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of
the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Most of the quotations that are taken out of context refer to this part of the Constitution and the concern that congress would fail to arm the militia in preference for the federal army.

It's really annoying me that the Second Amendment is not only misquoted and taken out f historical context, but it is taken out of Constitutional Context:

Former Reagan White House Press secretary who was also injured in the assassination attempt on President Reagan died yesterday. Brady's injuries from that attempt left him in a wheel chair for the rest of his life.

Despite that, those who knew him will tell you he maintained a great sense of humour.

After a National Rifle Association lobbyist equated a proposal to
expand background checks to the Nazi policies of Adolf Hitler, a
prominent guns rights activist defended the offensive comparison and
took it further, comparing gun registration to the Nazi practice of
tattooing Jews with identification numbers.

The NRA is under fire
after its Washington state lobbyist Brian Judy was heard telling
opponents of the state's background check proposal that one of the
proposal's primary supporters, who is Jewish, is "stupid" because "he's
put half-a-million dollars toward this policy, the same policy that led
to his family getting run out of Germany by the Nazis." Judy went on to
mock the intelligence of Jewish individuals who support gun safety.

Now Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
and the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms (CCRKBA), is coming to Judy's defense.

Gottlieb reacted
to Judy's comments on Seattle's CBS affiliate, saying "I don't see
anything wrong with those remarks," before comparing the "registration"
of Jews with number tattoos during the Holocaust to firearm
registration:

ESSEX PORTER, KIRO 7: You're Jewish, are those remarks appropriate?

GOTTLIEB: I don't see anything wrong with those remarks. I mean it's a
historical fact that Adolf Hitler registered people's firearms and then
confiscated them.

PORTER: Gottlieb says many gun owners see it this way.

GOTTLIEB: Gun owners don't like the idea that Jewish people had to
have, you know, numbers tattooed and registered on their arms. They
don't like the fact that they have gun owners that get registered
either.

A Havelock man was injured Thursday evening when a pistol being
cleared by a neighbor discharged, sending a bullet through a wall that
divided the two residences in the duplex.

Brannaird
Riley, 47, was wounded in the upper right arm, according to a release
from Havelock Police Chief G. Wayne Cyrus. Riley was treated at the
scene by Havelock rescue personnel and then transported to CarolinaEast
Medical Center in New Bern, where he was treated and released.

Marianne
Lee, 26, of 128 Village Court, was attempting to clear a 9 mm pistol for
packing for a move to California when the gun fired, according to the
release. The bullet went into the wall, ricocheted off a stud, passed
through Riley’s living room and then went through his bedroom wall.
Riley was struck while in his bed, according to the release.

Cyrus said
information from the investigation was provided to District Attorney
Scott Thomas. The discharge of the gun was determined to be accidental,
and no charges were filed against Lee, according to the release.

A five-month pregnant woman died after she was shot in the head while
admiring a friend's gun collection, Hernando County authorities said
Sunday.

The Citrus County woman and her husband were looking at
the gun collection belonging her friend William DeHayes in Brooksville
when DeHayes .22 caliber revolver discharged and hit the wife in the
head.

Katherine Lynn Hoover, 25, was quickly transported to a
nearby hospital and then airlifted to Regional Medical Center Bayonet
Point, where doctors removed the woman's baby, but he did not survive.
Hoover died early Sunday.

Deputies are continuing to investigate the incident,
which they believe was an accident. They did not immediately say whether
DeHayes would face charges of negligence.

A mental-health caseworker is dead and a doctor and his patient
wounded after a bizarre gunfight at a gun-free-zoned hospital in Yeadon,
Pa., near Philadelphia,
Thursday. As police prepare murder charges against the wounded patient,
focus is shifting to the gun-toting psychiatrist who stopped the
mayhem, likely saving other lives.

Prosecutors say Dr. Lee
Silverman opened fire on Richard Plotts, after Mr. Plotts shot his
caseworker and barged his way toward Dr. Silverman’s office desk after
gaining access to Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital. Silverman crouched down
behind his desk and fetched his gun, which he then fired at Mr. Plotts,
wounding him several times before he was subdued.

In the gunfight,
Silverman was grazed in the temple by a bullet. The caseworker
allegedly shot by Plotts, Theresa Hunt, died from her wounds, police
said. She was transporting Plotts to the hospital for treatment. One of
Silverman’s colleagues told the Monitor Friday that he was “surprised”
that the Mercy Fitzgerald psychiatrist was armed.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Open Carry is a stalking horse for a kind of DIY Governance whose goal is to systematically erode and ultimately destroy public trust in government — to return America to what the conservative movement imagines is its “pure,” pre-federal government state of nature

When the Founders looked for inspiration for the Declaration of
Independence, they found it in the works of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes,
and the Baron de Montesquieu — the so-called “Social Contract”
theorists. These men argued that humans existed in a State of Nature
where every man was his own judge and jury and where, therefore, little
good was ever accomplished. It was stable government — or, as they
called it, “Commonwealth” — that provided the basis for economic,
political, or social progress.

What the gun nuts and Second Amendment absolutists are determined to
do, in alliance with the Tenth Amendment fetishists, is to fundamentally
undermine America’s social contract and the government upon which it
depends – devolution to Hobbes’ description of life without government, a “war of all against all:”

…a time or war where every
man is enemy to every man…wherein men live without other security than
what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them
withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the
fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no
navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no
commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things
as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account
of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Which is just the way the Gun Lobby likes it. Because nothing pumps
up gun sales like continual fear and danger of violent death.

“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a
revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth....why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”“I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”

A man arrested on suspicion of accidentally shooting his girlfriend
in the chin made an initial court appearance Thursday on a charge of
criminal endangerment.

Yellowstone County sheriff’s deputies
arrested 27-year-old Christopher Ryan Gross Wednesday night after
responding to a call in Lockwood of an accidental shooting, according to
Sheriff Mike Linder.

He later told the deputy he is a
disabled veteran and was very upset at the government. Gross went on to
say that he called a local television station to talk about his
experience in the military and, in order to make a statement to his
girlfriend, grabbed a handgun from the kitchen, according to charging
documents.

He didn't check to see if the gun was loaded, and while
sitting on a couch and swinging the gun up and down, it went off with a
round hitting his girlfriend, the affidavit states.A preliminary breath test also revealed that Gross had a blood-alcohol level of 0.220 percent, according to charging documents.

"No animosity?" What's wrong with these people? How can there be no animosity, no outrage? They must be fanatical 2nd Amendment Believers themselves. Imagine your belief in guns everywhere being so important that you're capable of accepting the unnecessary and preventable death of your own kid.

The owner of the gun which the other 5-year-old used to kill little Noelle should already be in the slammer.